The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 26, 2010, the summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant: (a) at the Sejong Eastern Law Office located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu; and (b) C attorney-at-law requested C to receive a complaint to the Seoul Western Police Station on August 30, 2010, stating that “D would not allow the Defendant to use credit in its name because it is necessary for the Defendant to use the vehicle, and thus would not use the vehicle in his name; (c) would have the Defendant to use the vehicle in his name; (d) would have borrowed the vehicle in his name; and (d) would not pay the installments; and (e) would not pay the installments; and (e) on November 2009, the Defendant would have removed two copies of the personal seal impression because he was required to operate the company, but embezzled by disposing of the vehicle without permission, and thus would be punished.”

However, on November 2009, when the above D had not repaid the above D's loan of KRW 10 million from F to F, it explained it to the defendant who had been in an internal relationship at the time, and the defendant had a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression issued by the defendant on November 18, 2009 and affixed the defendant's seal seal certificate on the application form for registration of transfer, the vehicle collateral contract, and the cash custody certificate, and delivered all documents to the above F on the defendant's location, but it did not pay the above D's deposit and attached the above D's deposit at Hyundai Capital without permission, the above D's complaint that the above D disposed of the above vehicle without permission was raised against the seizure of the Hyundai Capital and further, the above D's intent was taken to have the criminal defendant punished.

Accordingly, the defendant reported false facts and rejected the above D.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, namely, the Defendant, at the investigative agency, consistently up to this court, offered D a rocketing car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) under the name of the Defendant as security to F.